Guy Who Undressed For TSA Search (With 4th Amendment Written On Chest) Sues Over Airport Detention

from the this-won't-go-far dept

Tue, Mar 15th 2011 2:49pm — Mike Masnick

We've seen various ways that people have protested TSA searches, but for one guy who decided to undress (as he suggests, to help the TSA out) and, as a part of that, display the 4th Amendment written on his chest, it led to him being detained and told he was under arrest (though, he didn't miss his flight):

However, he's now suing the government over all of this, claiming that the whole thing violated his 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights, along with false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. While I'm sympathetic to what he's trying to do, I can't see this getting very far at all. Judges have given the TSA great leeway (for better or -- in many cases -- worse) in what they do, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unique about these challenges. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's actually a good case, but it just seems unlike to impress a judge.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: arrests, privacy, searches, tsa

75 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:21pm

At least someone is trying to fight. Too bad everyone won't do it. Obama can wipe his ass with the constitution all he wants and the courts will back his administration I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Qritiqal (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:26pm
  
  Re:
  Stop all non-essential flights.
  No one NEEDS to go on vacation.
  When the airline industry fails completely, things will get better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course that would do it but it seems most of the US doesn't care that their personal liberties and rights are being stripped away by Obama and GW before him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Suzie Lou Jenkins, Esq., 28 Jun 2011 @ 7:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    Lol fuck that, I'm going to Disney World. I'll worry about the red shirts and black helicopters when they get here. Until then I guess they'll remain just another Paultard's demented fantasy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FloatingMeme (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 4:31pm
  
  Re: Anonymous Coward
  Hey AC....this TSA scanner stuff is Bush law passed by the GOP Congress prior to 2008....and the current GOP Congress isn't lifting a finger to change it. If you're going to blame Obama, you best undo the Tea Party lobotomy and get your facts straight.
  
  The TSA scans are clearly a violation of the Constitution. Just as Guantanamo is a violation of the Constitution. How can any president claim to exercise the power he GETS from the Constitution OUTSIDE that same Constitution. You'd have to be extremely dim to fall for that one......and it seems many Americans really are that "ill informed".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steven (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 4:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
    I'm not defending the AC, but the policies were put in place by a Repub controlled congress and Pres. They were further continued and expanded by a Demo controlled congress and Pres.
    
    Both parties suck. Anybody who thinks {party} is the problem isn't paying attention.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 5:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
      HOPE for CHANGE
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - senshikaze (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
        HOPE for REVOLUTION
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FuzzyDuck, 16 Mar 2011 @ 3:17am
    
    Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
    It's the oldest trick in the book to blame the previous government for everything, even Castro probably still does it.
    
    However when the current government CONTINUES the practices of the previous one, and even expands them, then that argument is just void. Sorry the Obama administration IS responsible they have decided to continue with those policies.
    
    Guantanamo Bay? Still open.
    Afghanistan? We're still fighting there.
    Iraq? We're still there too.
    Unreasonable searches? We still have them.
    Torture of suspects? Now also on US soil (See Bradley Manning).
    Seizure of domain names? New under Obama to help his Hollywood friends.
    Critical Officials? Resigned (doublespeak for Fired ) see: Mr. Crowley.
    
    Basically the only difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama has better PR - even I still have a feeling that Obama is more sympathetic and trustworthy, but my brain tells me he may be more dangerous precisely for that reason, he can get away with things that Bush never could.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeff, 27 Jun 2011 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
    Floating,
    
    I'd see your logic if you stepped up and held Barney Frank and the Dem laws and Congress that forced lenders to give bad loans to minorities and also claimed there were no problems. Yet you blamed Bush for that, too. Can't have it both ways
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- okwhen (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 10:48am
  
  Re:
  I completely concur and again Mike Masnick seems to be promoting, just take it in the ass like a good American subservient. This country's core foundation is built on defying unjust laws and people have willingly suffer and died for the sake of freedom. Therefore, if our reining government passes laws that violate the Constitution what method do you suggest? The majority of Americans disagree with the Patriot Act and nonetheless they renew it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 7:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Time to hijack some planes! Oh wait...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  Bush, not Obama, was the the one that gave TSA their power to do these searches
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michelle Palin, 28 Jun 2011 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  Wipe his ass? Bush had already flushed the thing before Obama got anywhere near it. At worse he has simply continued Bush's horrible policies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Kohne, 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:30pm

I'm glad he's fighting
I'm sure I can't afford to - I've got a family, and I can't really afford to have the government pissed off at me, especially since I occasionally travel for work.

What I think we're seeing is that on an issue that very few complain about, the judiciary tends to be lazy and assume that the government must be right. When enough cases show up, they start paying more attention and then they look at the underlying issues, and start to say 'hey, wait a minute, this isn't right!'. Hopefully we'll get to that point soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- okwhen (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 5:29am
  
  Re: I'm glad he's fighting
  I completely understand sacrificing for ones family. However, once the citizens of any governed people become afraid of their government's repercussion for exercising their rights, we no longer are in control of our own destiny. We no longer are living in a democracy but rather under a dictatorship. You basically answered your own question / statement. Are you an American willing to defend the Constitution or one of those who are willing to allow others to fight, die, sacrifice, etc while you benefit from their actions. Are you aware of how this country was founded. Their is a name for that and it is called a parasite.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PolyPusher (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:38pm

Sympathy
If he wasn't suing for damages I would have much more respect for his protest. This just tarnishes his message. I feel lawsuits such as this are an exploitation of our laws.

In protest of laws that are being manipulated under the guise of our safety, he is manipulating laws that were created to prevent persecution and injustice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:43pm
  
  Re: Sympathy
  How is suing for damages a problem?
  
  If the government doesn't have to pay anything, they don't have much of a disincentive to stop violating citizens' rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:43pm
  
  Re: Sympathy
  The surest way to your legislators pain-centers are thru his wallet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 4:04pm
  
  Re: Sympathy
  He may not have much of a choice - there are limits to how a person can get in front of a judge or jury, and sometimes a suit for damages is the only way. Just asking the court to declare a government action wrongful is not always an option due to various rules of court procedure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 4:18pm
  
  Re: Sympathy
  "In protest of laws that are being manipulated under the guise of our safety, he is manipulating laws that were created to prevent persecution and injustice..."
  
  Isn't his point that he was subjected to persecution and injustice? I don't see how this is abusing those laws, can you clarify?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:42pm

Why Is It Always The Subversives Who Cite The Constitution?
It�s like they�re against law and order, or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- William, 3 Apr 2011 @ 3:29am
  
  Re: why Is It Always The Subversives Who Cite The Constitution?
  Back when Nazi(s) where rounding up Jews and calling them subversive, no "law respecting German" cared. And dude(ette) I see where you are comming from, the number on my 88 year old arm agrees with your law respectong Nazistic cowardly life. Sig heil Obama !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:46pm

"but it just seems unlike to impress a judge. "

The end of the bold text is "Demand for a Jury Trial".

Can a criminal complaint be filed against the TSA (or employee thereof) for false imprisonment? Can fun judgements be doled out against the org. as a whole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kacela (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 5:36pm
  
  The answer is yes.
  Even though the TSA likes to address their workers as "officers," they are not sworn law enforcement officers, and therefor do not have the same protections afforded to LEOs.
  
  Basically - if a TSA "officer" touches your junk after you tell them not to, you can have him arrested for assault.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:47pm

lETS NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT PERSONAL RIGHTS.
Lets discuss how many people have gone into the airports, and have been ready for anything..

These folks have been held up EVEN more, then if they had wore clothing.

STRIP, walk thru, let them scan ALL your clothing(should be easy)(should be quick)..continue to plane.

Its the MORAL SNOBS that are having the most problem.

IMHO, GOD was a Voyeur.. And until the snake led them to the tree of knowledge...THEY didnt know they were NAKED. Wouldnt being NAKED please god?

The other point comes with the ABUSE, of these positions.. Stolen property, and RIDICULOUS procedures.

Scanning Pilots..as if that will stop them from PLOWING into the ground.

Independent tests..showing that you can get ANYTHING threw checkin..

Going beyond there JOB DESCRIPTION.. persons carrying Large amounts of money/CASH being STOPPED and QUESTIONED.

Even in the Koran.. YOU DONT USE KIDS..so why are we inspecting them. Women and children are forbidden from waging war. Those that use them are condemned BEYOND HELL.

On and on and on...
HOW about Searching persons AFTER they get off the trains..WEIRD.. Its to easy to destroy tracks, then to even be on the train.

All previous attacks were on GOVERNMENT locations/facilities, NOT on public locations. so why are the PUBLIC WORRIED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 4:29pm
  
  Re: lETS NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT PERSONAL RIGHTS.
  Darryl?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ECA (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 6:17pm
    
    Re: Re: lETS NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT PERSONAL RIGHTS.
    ANON:
    
    (and yes you are A-NON)(could be worse, you could be A-Noid)
    
    But which is better...
    GET FELT UP by a Bi-Gay- Big GULP..
    Or just STRIP and show it all..
    
    WHY be detained?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 4:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: lETS NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT PERSONAL RIGHTS.
      "GET FELT UP by a Bi-Gay- Big GULP.."
      
      I'm not offended enough to report this, but I am offended enough to call you out on being an ignorant asshole.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- isaac the k, 16 Mar 2011 @ 5:36am
  
  Re: lETS NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT PERSONAL RIGHTS.
  Just to point out - not to make moral judgements or take sides:
  "Even in the Koran.. YOU DONT USE KIDS..so why are we inspecting them. Women and children are forbidden from waging war. Those that use them are condemned BEYOND HELL."
  
  Care to explain, then, female suicide bombers? terrorists using children as human shields? and encouraging them to fight by throwing rocks at soldiers while said terrorists are shooting their automatics from behind them?
  
  Just because it's "against" the Koran doesn't mean people don't do it. Infidelity is forbidden in all religions, and yet it's pretty wide spread, wouldn't you say?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:55pm

"...but it just seems unlike to impress a judge."

Perhaps if he'd worked the pectoral area a little more...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:55pm

It might have helped if he'd even come close to getting the text of the Fourth Amendment correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 4:17pm

It would be funny if he got fully naked and then they charged him with public indecency. So which is it? Those are private parts or they're not private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 4:21pm

If there was any sanity in the US this guy would have a slam dunk case. I however strongly doubt there is much sanity left in the justice system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 5:35pm

4th amendment underwear
Various companies (cargocollective.com and probably others) make t-shirts and under-garments printed with the 4th amendment. You can also get it printed in metallic ink so it shows up on the x-ray scanners even if concealed by other clothing. I'm pretty much just boycotting the airlines and airports, but I'd buy one of these shirts if I actually planned on flying anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 15 Mar 2011 @ 5:54pm

Last time I was at the airport, I do not recall seeing any signs addressing the need for proper attire. Why is he not allowed a TSA porno scan in his skivvies? Seems the TSA gets upset about anyone who dares to point out the obvious and makes sure that an example is made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ECA (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re:
  IT THEY WANT TO KNOW.,..SHOW them.
  WHO cares how you do it... STRIP..and go.
  Why should PLACING your hands ALL OVER my body be a requirement?
  
  Its already been shown that the Scanner dont work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 6:22pm

It�s like they�re against law and order, or something.

Nope - *Government* by violating our 4th amendment rights are the ones breaking the law - both by definition and in concept.

Did government have a warrant to search anyone? No.

The 4th Amendment CLEARLY states it is in fact REQUIRED for them to - ******PERIOD****** - THAT IS THE LAW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Note the part that clearly states: "Shall not be violated" - yet, it is.

But many buy the right wing 'it's for your own good' spin.

No, without our rights - this country isn't worth protecting now is it? 'America' is more of a concept than anything.

So again - who's breaking the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Topknot, 15 Mar 2011 @ 6:46pm

Your RIGHTS?
What Rights are you talking about here?
4th Amendment Rights?
Please stop this nonsense. Buy a plane tickets and you agree to waive these Rights. But if it make you feel better to think you are a constitutional scholar then carry on.

But I sure wish they would stop those searches so I will be able to ride on a plane again. I just refuse to fly because of the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re:
  If this was something put into place by the airlines, or by the airports themselves this argument would make sense. The TSA is a government organization that should have to follow the rules put in place by said government.
  
  As it is what is stopping the Transportation Security Administration from setting up roadblocks at the entrance to every neighborhood to search vehicles?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 15 Mar 2011 @ 7:18pm
  
  Re:
  "Buy a plane tickets and you agree to waive these Rights. "
  
  Oh please, show us where, ANYWHERE, this is codified in law or the constitution.
  
  What a ridiculous load of garbage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 9:05pm
  
  Re:
  What?
  
  Buying anything can strip you of the 4th amendment?
  
  WTF?!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re:
  we have the right to free an unfettered travel in the united states as proved by the article of confederation. the supreme court as ruled on this several times. you DO NOT give up your rights when you buy a plane ticket.
  
  http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Raif, 18 Mar 2011 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Additionally, a contract can't require you to waive your 4th amendment rights to a state actor. It may be a little fuzzier on private actors.
    
    Regardless, it's reasonable to assume that the TSA should be considered a state actor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkyyy, 15 Mar 2011 @ 7:10pm

new 1 foot wide amendment temp tattoos only 19.99
CALL NOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkyyy, 15 Mar 2011 @ 7:13pm

"Tobey was on his way to Wisconsin for his grandmother�s funeral. Despite his detainment, he made his flight."
should have done it on his way back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 7:20pm

Mike, you got this one right. The guy showed up "looking for a fight", which is never a good thing when dealing with security. He honestly looks like he would have something to hide, you know, the guy who goes "aha!" and pulls a knife out of his anal cavity or something to try to prove the system is failing.

He earned every moment of his detention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steven (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 8:36pm
  
  Re:
  That's right damnit!
  
  Doesn't matter if you are in the legal right, doesn't matter if the government is trampling over your rights.
  
  If you do anything that even expresses a disagreement with the government you deserve everything you get!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 9:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It does matter if the government is trampling rights, but at the same time, when you show up looking like a jackass trying to get attention it is very likely you will get attention.
    
    Last time I checked, there was no "right to fly commercial" in the constitution.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris in Utah (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 10:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Last time I check there was no alternative to fly commercial.
      
      Fixed
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 10:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Inside the US, they have things called trains, cars, buses... if you have to go overseas, they have things called boats.
        
        Again, can you remind me of which amendment of the constitution grants the "right to fly"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris in Utah (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 12:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah its called
        Here�s one more item for you, the last in our civics book: Rights. Why everyone in this country is always running around yammering about their fuckin rights. I have a right, you have no right, we have a right, they don�t have a right� Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but�there�s no such thing as rights, okay? They�re imaginary. We made them up! Like the Boogie Man� the Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, Mother Goose, shit like that. Rights are an idea, they�re just imaginary, they are a cute idea, cute� but that�s all, cute, and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, where do they come from? People say, well, they come from God, they�re God-given rights� Ahh fuck, here we go again� here we go again. The God excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, it came from God. Anything we can�t describe, must have come from God.
        
        For further inquiry onto your bloody rights check this out.
        
        Ya want a true commandment; thou shall not force thy beliefs on others (thank GC for that one too and please read in the double entrende on that one if you please.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 4:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay, don't take this the wrong way, but? FUCK YOU. Fuck you right in the goddamned ear with a rusty chainsaw.
        
        No one said they had a 'right to fly.' They said they had a right not to be subjected to illegal search and seizure. You're twisting the argument around to make it look like you're right, when you are in fact entirely incorrect. And you know it.
        
        'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
        
        There are no exceptions to this, no matter WHAT the courts try to say. There isn't even ROOM for interpretation otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2011 @ 11:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There is also no "right to drive a car" in the Constitution. It doesn't mean the government can ignore the 4th Amendment because you chose to drive.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 12:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Technically, is there "a right to walk" or a "right to breath" or a "right to eat" or a "right to whistle" or a "right to sing" or a "right to take a shower" or maybe a "right to sing in the shower"? So, if you choose to engage in these activities, does the government then get to break the law?
        
        Just because you maybe doing something that the constitution doesn't explicitly give you a right to do doesn't mean the govt gets to violate the rights the constitution does give you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        is there "a right to walk" or a "right to breath" or a "right to eat" or a "right to whistle" or a "right to sing" or a "right to take a shower" or maybe a "right to sing in the shower"? So, if you choose to engage in these activities, does the government then get to break the law?
        
        Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly.
        
        My point is that there is no specific "right to fly", and freedom of speech or assembly doesn't cover flying on a privately owned commercial aircraft.
        
        If the guy doesn't like the rules, he doesn't have to fly.
        
        Oh, and for the AC above, there is no "right to drive a car". Driving is an earned privilege, by passing your driving test, and owning (or renting / borrowing) a vehicle that meets the standards for being on the road. It is a privilege that can be revoke, removed or modified by changes in the law or because of your failures to follow them.
        
        Rights are rights, privileges are not rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MT, 27 Jun 2011 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I�m sorry but you point out that the people who want to fly are doing so on privately owned and commercially operated airlines as that is the case what right has the government involving itself in what a person may or may not carry with them, and performing searches of private citizens going about their own business? In that line of thinking there is no reason they cannot be posting a guard outside of your house waiting for you to go to your own car in the driveway to search your briefcase and pat you down before you drive off for work in the morning. I think the conversation may look like this �Morning Mr. Jones, how many cups of coffee have you had this morning? Oh I see three is a bit much for the morning commute but I won�t report you this time. Yes sir open the case, thank you sir, no nothing else you may go now.�
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael J, 4 Oct 2011 @ 3:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The rights and protections guaranteed by the US Constitution and the laws of whatever state one may live in do not become invalid once you cross the threshold onto an airplane. They still apply. So much for your "logic".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
B's Opinion Only (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 8:31pm

H E R O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rwolf, 15 Mar 2011 @ 11:16pm

TSA Relentless, Invasive Searches
Will We Be Spied ON And X-Rayed To Death�By Government?

Why does Wal-Mart need (manned) spy towers on mobile strategic platforms when Wal-Mart has cameras on its Super Center Roofs viewing parking lots? One might conclude U.S. Government made possible the spy towers at certain Wal-Marts as a trial run, to condition, intimidate and instill in millions of Americans shoppers�they are being watched. It is problematic that Wal-Mart mobile platforms might in addition to cameras, have infrared, (license plate and face recognition capability) tied to TSA/Homeland Security. If that is the case, one can envision police coming to Wal-Marts to drag off shoppers that�mobile platform-cameras identified having outstanding warrants. Why is U.S. Government hurriedly developing a police state? The Government is now using hundreds of (mobile X-ray vans) to scan without warrants�Citizens driving on roadways, when walking, standing�government and police can now use scanners to peer inside Citizens� bedrooms.

Is it only the War On Terrorism or is there another reason U.S. Government intends to establish millions of spy cameras on roadways, on public and private property? Meanwhile the Obama Government is ordering more X-ray scanners for airports; soon bus and train stops, the possibilities are endless? TSA has banned Americans flying without explanation; could government next blacklist Americans having access to enter shopping malls or private office buildings, even to see clients; or make it extremely demeaning that he or she visitor must be escorted in and out of non-government property?

One can also envision outspoken Americans and writers considered dissidents or combatants by U.S. Government, subsequently being harassed, constantly questioned by police when driving to work, at checkpoints, when walking, driving around a City�being repeatedly forced to endure invasive pat down searches and x-ray scans. It is frightening to consider that a corrupt U.S. Government or quasi government agency could abuse government X-ray scanners, potentially over expose (targeted Citizens) to radiation�perhaps causing recipients cancer. Imagine the potential of over exposure for "Persons Of Interests� if repeatedly (forced to be scanned) at checkpoints and other locations.

See Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVQRMrlQ95U
�Mobile Prison Guard Towers Coming to a Walmart near You! Unbelievable�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 4:27am

It still comes to..
It still comes to..
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT not to be felt up..

HERE ARE MY CLOTHES, search them..I will walk thru naked.

WHY the delay?

TSA, isnt there to FIND MONEY.
TSA, isnt there to find DRUGS..
TSA, has failed most-all independent tests, hiding things from them..

The only things STOPPED, has been reported on international Flights. NONE have been reported in this country.

If I was a terrorist, I would DRIVE A RENTED/Borrowed/Stolen CAR.

All incidents happened in Major metro areas.
ALL incidents happened to Military/WTO buildings. Even the twin towers were the high point in the USA used at some point to listen to Earth based signals, for the CIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- isaac the k, 16 Mar 2011 @ 5:47am
  
  Re: It still comes to..
  Why is it that everyone only thinks of the events in the US when it comes to terrorism?
  Just because they haven't set off nerve gas in the dc subway doesn't mean they WON'T (Japan)
  just because they haven't set off a bomb in said location doesn't mean they WON'T (UK)
  Just because they haven't blown up school buses full of children and attacked kindergartens doesn't mean that they WON'T (Israel)
  
  Mind you, I'm all FOR what this guy did, and would love to try it myself (looking into those metallic printed Tees), but PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF ANYTHING THAT YOU MAY IN PARTICULAR HOLD TO BE PERSONALLY SACRED (following the aforementioned "commandment" as quoted from GC in Utah Chris' post) STOP THIS US-CENTRIC NARROWMINDEDNESS. THE WORLD OUTSIDE EXISTS. DEAL WITH IT.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shon Gale (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 6:38am

He stands a good chance if he finds a Judge who reads the entire complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  Not really. He would have to show that the searches are unreasonable, which is a pretty tough standard to meet, considering that recent bombers have had materials in their underwear, socks, shoes, and such, and that there are plenty of documented cases of people smuggling illegal materials (such as drugs) using various "on the body" techniques.
  
  Trying to prove the search is unreasonable would be very difficult, if not impossible. As soon as he fails there, the rest of his (amusingly arrogant) case falls to pieces.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 12:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So basically you're saying if one person does a certain thing a certain way, that constitutes 'probable cause' to search every other citizen to ensure that they're not?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob, 17 Mar 2011 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    From what I've so far nobody understands the issue. TSA does have the right to search just like the border patrol has a right to search your car at a border crossing. The airport could be considered very much like a border crossing. In any event the government has a compelling interest in preventing contraband on airplanes.
    HOWEVER, the government doesn't have the right to detain you for for merely reciting (or paraphrasing) the constitution in a non-violent non confrontational way. I don't see that he resisted the search or was in any way less than cooperative. The problem is the detention, not the search.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob, 17 Mar 2011 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    From what I've so far nobody understands the issue. TSA does have the right to search just like the border patrol has a right to search your car at a border crossing. The airport could be considered very much like a border crossing. In any event the government has a compelling interest in preventing contraband on airplanes.
    HOWEVER, the government doesn't have the right to detain you for for merely reciting (or paraphrasing) the constitution in a non-violent non confrontational way. I don't see that he resisted the search or was in any way less than cooperative. The problem is the detention, not the search.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob, 17 Mar 2011 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    From what I've so far nobody understands the issue. TSA does have the right to search just like the border patrol has a right to search your car at a border crossing. The airport could be considered very much like a border crossing. In any event the government has a compelling interest in preventing contraband on airplanes.
    HOWEVER, the government doesn't have the right to detain you for for merely reciting (or paraphrasing) the constitution in a non-violent non confrontational way. I don't see that he resisted the search or was in any way less than cooperative. The problem is the detention, not the search.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob, 17 Mar 2011 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    From what I've so far nobody understands the issue. TSA does have the right to search just like the border patrol has a right to search your car at a border crossing. The airport could be considered very much like a border crossing. In any event the government has a compelling interest in preventing contraband on airplanes.
    HOWEVER, the government doesn't have the right to detain you for for merely reciting (or paraphrasing) the constitution in a non-violent non confrontational way. I don't see that he resisted the search or was in any way less than cooperative. The problem is the detention, not the search.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 1:47pm

Spoiler:

Sorry to break it up to you people but the reality is that this is another piece of proof that the constitution was and still is actually written for the elite bourgeoisie not everyone else below them (poor/working classes/"middle classes") along with members of the Supreme Court are able to pass the TSA scans because the constitution is actually written for them not us.

The constitution is not a holy document that everyone makes it out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 1:48pm

Spoiler:

Sorry to break it up to you people but the reality is that this is another piece of proof that the constitution was and still is actually written for the elite bourgeoisie not everyone else below them (poor/working classes/"middle classes") along with members of the Supreme Court are able to pass the TSA scans because the constitution is actually written for them not us.

The constitution is not a holy document that everyone makes it out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  which is how the US Capitalist system works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 3:24pm

Really?
Perhaps I'm wrong and it's actually a good case, but it just seems unlike to impress a judge.

You mean, a government judge might not be impressed by someone trying to take legal action against that very same government? Gee, do you really think so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mysti, 4 Oct 2011 @ 2:17pm

Sexual Assault done by Airport Security
The Twin Towers Incident succeeded. We are, as a Nation, terrified of our own shadows. To board a plane, we must allow ourselves to be sexually touched, handled, undressed in public, and in general, be humilliated in front of the public. I would say the Twin Towers incident succeeded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AikiBriarRose, 4 Oct 2011 @ 8:48pm

unjust laws and constitutional rights
Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.

The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.

The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Those who govern, having much business on their hands, do not generally like to take the trouble of considering and carrying into execution new projects. The best public measures are therefore seldom adopted from previous wisdom, but forced by the occasion.

Where liberty is, there is my country.

Where sense is wanting, everything is wanting.
Quotes by Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]